Limits...
Dietary fat intake and endometrial cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies.

Jiang L, Hou R, Gong TT, Wu QJ - Sci Rep (2015)

Bottom Line: Random-effects models were used to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Non-significant results were observed in plant-based fat (summary RR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.94-1.18; I(2) = 0%; n = 5) and animal-based fat (summary RR = 1.17, 95%CI = 0.92-1.36; I(2) = 85.0%; n = 6).In conclusion, findings of the present meta-analysis suggested a lack of association between total dietary fat intake and EC risk.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ultrasound, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.

ABSTRACT
Epidemiological studies have provided controversial evidence of the association between dietary fat intake and endometrial cancer (EC) risk. To address this inconsistency, we conducted this dose-response meta-analysis by total dietary fat intake, based on epidemiological studies published up to the end of June 2015 identified from PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Two authors (RH and Q-JW) independently performed the eligibility evaluation and data extraction. All differences were resolved by discussion with the third investigator (LJ). Random-effects models were used to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall, the search yielded 16 studies (6 cohort and 10 case-control studies) that involved a total of 7556 EC cases and 563,781 non-cases. The summary RR for EC for each 30 g/day increment intake was 0.98 (95%CI = 0.95-1.001; I(2) = 0%; n = 11) for total dietary fat. Non-significant results were observed in plant-based fat (summary RR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.94-1.18; I(2) = 0%; n = 5) and animal-based fat (summary RR = 1.17, 95%CI = 0.92-1.36; I(2) = 85.0%; n = 6). Additionally, the associations were observed in almost all the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, findings of the present meta-analysis suggested a lack of association between total dietary fat intake and EC risk. Further studies, especially prospective designed studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Flow-chart of study selection.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4645223&req=5

f1: Flow-chart of study selection.

Mentions: Figure 1 presented the detailed procedures of the article search and screening. Briefly, the search strategy retrieved 3690 unique articles: 872 from PubMed, 1754 from EMBASE, and 1064 from Web of Science. Of these, 3667 articles were excluded after the first screening based on abstracts or titles, leaving 23 articles for full-text review. Among them, eight articles were further excluded due to (i) no usable risk estimates or 95% CIs were reported; and (ii) study population duplication. Overall, a total of 15 articles (16 studies) were included in the present meta-analysis67891011121314151617181920.


Dietary fat intake and endometrial cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies.

Jiang L, Hou R, Gong TT, Wu QJ - Sci Rep (2015)

Flow-chart of study selection.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4645223&req=5

f1: Flow-chart of study selection.
Mentions: Figure 1 presented the detailed procedures of the article search and screening. Briefly, the search strategy retrieved 3690 unique articles: 872 from PubMed, 1754 from EMBASE, and 1064 from Web of Science. Of these, 3667 articles were excluded after the first screening based on abstracts or titles, leaving 23 articles for full-text review. Among them, eight articles were further excluded due to (i) no usable risk estimates or 95% CIs were reported; and (ii) study population duplication. Overall, a total of 15 articles (16 studies) were included in the present meta-analysis67891011121314151617181920.

Bottom Line: Random-effects models were used to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Non-significant results were observed in plant-based fat (summary RR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.94-1.18; I(2) = 0%; n = 5) and animal-based fat (summary RR = 1.17, 95%CI = 0.92-1.36; I(2) = 85.0%; n = 6).In conclusion, findings of the present meta-analysis suggested a lack of association between total dietary fat intake and EC risk.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ultrasound, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.

ABSTRACT
Epidemiological studies have provided controversial evidence of the association between dietary fat intake and endometrial cancer (EC) risk. To address this inconsistency, we conducted this dose-response meta-analysis by total dietary fat intake, based on epidemiological studies published up to the end of June 2015 identified from PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Two authors (RH and Q-JW) independently performed the eligibility evaluation and data extraction. All differences were resolved by discussion with the third investigator (LJ). Random-effects models were used to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall, the search yielded 16 studies (6 cohort and 10 case-control studies) that involved a total of 7556 EC cases and 563,781 non-cases. The summary RR for EC for each 30 g/day increment intake was 0.98 (95%CI = 0.95-1.001; I(2) = 0%; n = 11) for total dietary fat. Non-significant results were observed in plant-based fat (summary RR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.94-1.18; I(2) = 0%; n = 5) and animal-based fat (summary RR = 1.17, 95%CI = 0.92-1.36; I(2) = 85.0%; n = 6). Additionally, the associations were observed in almost all the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, findings of the present meta-analysis suggested a lack of association between total dietary fat intake and EC risk. Further studies, especially prospective designed studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus